You are here

Two cops vs one MMA figher (video)

Here is an interesting video showing two police offers take on a MMA fighter in a live drill. Weapons are included too. I’m not a police officer, but there are many things that leap out at me when I watch this video. My main observation would be that the importance of context is not fully realised and hence the correct tactics are not employed and dangerous practises are observable.

I think this will make for a good discussion so, to kick things off, here are is the video with some of my initial thoughts below.

1 – A skilled fighter is defeated by two guys with lesser skill due to the numbers involved. From a civilian point of view, this should further illustrate that fighting is a bad option when outnumbered even if you are more skilled that your enemies. “Fighting to flee” as opposed to fighting to win is the way to go.

2 – The police officer in the grey top is stabbed at 1:54. The gent playing the role of the bad guy stabs him in the back. The neck is also vulnerable due to the position of the officer. For reasons unknown, by 2:02 we can see the bad guy has let go of the knife. I can’t see any disarm, so I assume he chose to let go of it? Certainly it’s hard to see how the officer could have got him to let go whist being on the bad guy’s back? The officer in grey continues as if he had not been stabbed, which is fair enough, but it should be noted that he would have suffered a significant puncture wound. If the knife had been better retained, the bad guy would also have been able to stab backward into thighs and ribs of the officer in black. What is good position when fighting unarmed, is nowhere near as good when the enemy is armed.

3 – One officer was stabbed, and the other one may have been (we cant’s see), and both could have been stabbed a lot more if the knife had been retained. It’s therefore fair to say the officers messed up in choosing to fight. The officers would have been better maintaining distance and using their voice (possibly in conjunction with the threat of weapons i.e. draw their firearms) to get the bad guy to put his arms out and keep them there. One officer could then have ensured this position was maintained, while the other searched for weapons and employed handcuffing procedures. In the scenario as shown, there was no need to engage as they did and hence a non-fighting option would have been far better. The choice to engage was a very bad one as the objective could have been achieved more safely using non-physical options. It could have been that the officers were told prior to the drill that they must engage … and that’s bad too as they are being forced to do something dangerous and inappropriate to the circumstance as presented in the scenario enacted (i.e. bad habits are being encouraged).

4 – As 2:04 the officer in gray kneels on the knife. Pretty easy to do in the mess of things, but it does show how injury can be sustained through environmental factors.

5 – Throwing the knife out of reach (2:06) is a smart move as it ensures the bad guy can’t pick it back up. This of course assumes the bad guy was operating alone. If he was not, the weapon could have been used by another.

6 – At about 2:50, the bad guy was able to reach the gun of the officer in black. He does not reach for it, and the officer does not seek to pro-actively protect his weapon. The only thing that could have prevented the bad guy taking the officer’s gun would therefore have been the design of the holster. As the officer in grey attempts to manipulate the legs of the bad guy, he also positions himself in such a way that his gun is potentially available to the bad guy. The officers and the bad guy therefore effectively “play unarmed ju-jutsu” and all three ignore the fact that two guns are available. Both officers could have been killed had a more realistic attitude to the guns been taken. The only reason their failure to protect their weapons was not exploited was the fact that the bad guy also ignored them.

7 – At 3:27, the officer releases his hold because he thinks the bad guy has tapped out. The coach can be heard to say, “No there is no tap. For what? Keep going.” The coach seems to be underlining the fact that tapping out has no relevance to this situation (aside from the safety of those in the drill). I think that is important and very valid.

8 – At 3:30, the officer in black asks the bad guy to put is arms out straight. The bad guy complies. I can’t help but feel that would have been the way to go early on i.e. avoid physically engaging all together. The officer in grey takes the officer in black’s handcuffs and passes them to him. This is a nice bit of team work which is evident throughout (i.e. one officer concentrating on the upper body and one on the legs while communicating verbally).

9 – The officers continued control of the bad guy during handcuffing is good. They work as a team and limit the bad guy’s options.

10 – It may have been better not to call time on the drill until the bad guy had been effectively stood up. I’ve only done one handcuffing course, and during that I was made aware of methods to ensure the person cuffed can get up safely. In this drill, they stopped too soon in my view as it is possible to do what the bad guy did and bring the cuffs to the front while lying down. A minor point perhaps, but standing him up would have been a more appropriate place to finish.

I’m sure others will have their own observations to add to the above, but one overriding thing for me is that I don’t think the context has been fully appreciated in this drill for the following key reasons:

A – The officers could have avoided conflict all together by choosing more effective options (i.e. verbal commands from a distance). If they had wished to drill the use of physical techniques, then the bad guy should have rushed the officers. And seeing as it’s impossible to take two guys down at once, we would not see this “double ground work”. As one officer was engaged, the other would be free to do as they please. As it was, the officers rushed the bad guy and hence made a major error. This “mistake of context” should not have been permitted as it put the officers in unnecessary danger. A very dangerous “martial arts” habit is being reinforced i.e. fighting is all we know, so fighting is your only option. The officers messed up big time through choosing conflict and ignoring safer, more effective methods.

B – The use and retention of weapons is largely ignored by all involved. People were stabbed during the drill, and could have been stabbed much more, and potentially shot, if a more realistic approach to the weapons had been taken. There are no weapons in consensual “duels” (i.e. dojo, mat, or cage fighting), and all three participants largely failed to switch contexts with the weapons being entirely ignored after the first stab. I think this is a danger of not fully thinking through contexts and ensuring only appropriate “cross-over” is permitted through realistic, objective focused drills.

C – To me, it looks like Jujutsu ground work was forced as the only option in a context where it was neither a wise or necessary option.

Another thing we can see from this video is that more than one person being involved changes things greatly. It’s a huge error in much of modern training that things are always one-on-one. The introduction of others (which is commonplace) changes things dramatically. Fighting is a bad option and hence escape skills need to be introduced to live practise to ensure that the right tactics are practised and adhered to by default when under stress.

We should all be practising with multiple enemies and simulated weapons … and ensuring we adopt the right tactics as a result. While there is some good stuff in this video (i.e. the fact the there is more than one person, they do work as a team, weapons are included, it’s a live and unscripted drill, etc) it seems to me like one-on-one, unarmed, fighting tactics and thinking are still very much present i.e. the context is not fully appreciated.

There was no need for the officers to engage as they did and conflict could have been entirely avoided. Physical engagement should never be presented as the only option when other more effective options exist. Martial artists are bad for this as they often present their particular skill set (i.e. physical fighting skills) as the go to solution for all things. As the old saying goes, “If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” From a civilian self-protection perspective (as well as in police training) the non-physical aspects need to be included, emphasised, and taught in an in-depth and realistic way. It is only then that the more effective non-physcal options can be chosen as an alternative.

Weapons were included in the drill, but they were not realistically used, exploited or retained. I would suggest this was because unarmed thinking dominated. Therefore, to me, this video is a good example of the dangers of not identifying the objective, the context not being fully appreciated, and hence potentially dangerous and inappropriate methods being employed.

If this was a Life Death situation for the arrestee I'm sure he would have kept stabbing until he was forced not to.

Also I agree, the Gun could have been grabbed and used against the Officers. I think its great but should have been taken into context, the officer had been stabbed at least once and would be bleeding out so wouldn't be able to assist the other officer so well.

i would love to know if any Active Police officers would be able to respond to this

I had watched that video a few times, as I am a slight fan of the Gracie brothers Rener and Ryron, but when I have watched it I wasn't very critical of it. I guess I took for granted the intended "spirit" of the drill, which I feel was the promotion of Gracie Jiu-Jitsu for the subdueing of suspects by law enforcement officers.

In hindsight, I should have been more critical. You are spot on as usual Mr. Abernethy. There's something dangerous is missing elements in a drill and not accounting for them. If you are going to put on your kit, then in a drill setting the kit should be "live" as it were. In this instance I feel that although the officers may have gained a bit of submission and control knowlege, they may have very well also dangerously created a poor conditional rule that excludes their kit in their minds while doing this.

They very well could have learned something and made some forward progress in one skill, but they have lost ground in another. I am not even a law enforcement officer and I know that your kit and your weapon take priority in situations like this.

I pretty much agee with all your observations, on the whole it didn't seem like a realistic attempt at a scenario so much as a way of saying "ok do this with your Jujitsu", when Jujitsu (maybe martial arts period) may not be the right tool for the job.

For the record, I think BBJ can provide a very useful skill set for officers ... and you can see elements of this with how the bad guy is controlled during handcuffing. It's also one of the most effective set of fighting skills out there and it's had a hugely positive effect on the martial arts generally.
What I wished to raise was the failure to fully realise the impact of context. As I've said many times before, I feel this is one of the biggest problems in the way fighters and martial artists teach self-protection. This is therefore not a critique of BJJ, but an observation of the largely ignored issue of context and being objective driven.
Problem should define solution as opposed to solution defining problem.
All the best,
Iain

Do the Gracies accept proffesional feedback on their tactics? As Ian pointed out they are simply forcing mma style grappling into different contexts and calling it "survival tactis." Why havn't they sought out a proffesional to help them make their tactics more likely to succed in that context?

Seems to me they're selling dangerous, untested, and unqualified tactics to people who put their lives on the line becasue their not interested in some outsider telling them that their precious art is not a one size fits all.

Would love to know what someone else like Rory Miller or Marc MacYoung think of this "Gracie Survival Tactics"

Watched (well mostly) their "street vs. sport jiu-jitsu" and I come away confused. They claim the difference is all about "mastering the distancing" but during their brief demo they point out that a person can do things like striking and elbowing, things that are not allowed in a sport grappling context. They go on and on about how it's completely different and how you have to master the distance but if their 2 cops video is any indication their street ju jutsu isn't really any different.

I am a correctional worker in a U.S. federal correctional institution, so the context I train with at work differs considerably from that which I teach my karate students for civilian self-protection but is somewhat akin to that of police officers. I would say Iain's analysis is right on the money but would like to add two additional observations. First, neither officer (unless I missed it) alerted the other when the knife was first produced. As a matter of practice we always, during cell extractions or disturbances, shout "knife" when we see one. In corrections, deadly force is rarely an option except in the case of a calculated use of force in the instance of a large scale riot, hostage situation, etc. It's a poor practice to carry firearms when among the inmate population for obvious reasons. Consequently, we employ the following use-of-force model which uses color coding as an easy reference:

Green: the suspect is passively resistant; the CO contains and reports the situation to summons backup

Yellow: the suspect is actively resistant; the CO(s) use compliance techniques such as a verbal order to subside presented along with a show of superior force

Orange: the suspect is assaultive; the CO(s) use controlling/defensive tactics

Red: the suspect presents a lethal threat or actively attempts to escape; the CO(s) respond with deadly force

The model is designed to be used progressively so that the least amount of force necessary is used in hopes that the users' efforts deescalate the situation. This is a good general use of force paradigm and has been adopted by many other American law enforcement entities. The two officers in the drill jump immediately to an "orange" response to what is only a "green" level of threat. In most law enforcement agencies this would be in violation of policy, not to mention unnecessary and dangerous.

2 – The police officer in the grey top is stabbed at 1:54. The gent playing the role of the bad guy stabs him in the back. The neck is also vulnerable due to the position of the officer. For reasons unknown, by 2:02 we can see the bad guy has let go of the knife. I can’t see any disarm, so I assume he chose to let go of it? Certainly it’s hard to see how the officer could have got him to let go whist being on the bad guy’s back? The officer in grey continues as if he had not been stabbed, which is fair enough, but it should be noted that he would have suffered a significant puncture wound. If the knife had been better retained, the bad guy would also have been able to stab backward into thighs and ribs of the officer in black. What is good position when fighting unarmed, is nowhere near as good when the enemy is armed.

Mhhh I can't see any stabbing here. It looks like he is reaching for the knife but he don't gets it out in time. I guess it is simply falling out of his pocket while rolling around. I can't see no fumbling or that he has it actualy in his hands.

I also find it strange that the "cops" jumped that guy almost immediately. I am no cop at all but I guess they could have told the "bad guy from the hood" that there is an apb out on him, so he is a wanted man and that they need him to go with them.

It looks to me that the "thug" just wants to make the "cops" look bad, but has no intention at all to give it all out (thus no use of the weapons he could have accessed).

Iain Abernethy wrote:

C – To me, it looks like Jujutsu ground work was forced as the only option in a context where it was neither a wise or necessary option.

I guess this is because they want to sell their GST. And I don't like that because people buy it and get killed.

The color coding Nezumi talked about seems to be great (otherwise it wouldn't be used I guess) and falls in the line with the observations made that there could have been a better way to solve that situation. (But that was not the intention of the drill)

Not immediately going for the ground fight and first trying out other methods of prevention/ pre-emption is obviously priority one but even assuming that there is no choice, what struck me as foolish was the fact that both of the police officers chose to go down with him and grapple. Surely if one had remained on his feet he could simply have drawn his gun and ordered the criminal engaged with his partner to surrender?

I don't want to cut on GJJ as my feeling about it is abut the same Ian's, I respect it greatly and the guys are simply top notch combat athletes and martial artists, but honestly every time i've seen Rener etc. talk on "self defense", they fail to even distinguish between a streetfight or self defense.

It might be that i've missed some vital thing, I certainly don't follow them all that closely. However, even with their "Gracie Pyramid" video making the rounds a while back, they spent all this time talking about how GJJ can be used for "street fights", while never giving a defintion of streetfight, and never really acknowledging that from a self defense standpoint, a skillset which forces prolonged engagement with one person, on the ground has some pretty obvious defects. I believed they have said things like "well no system can teach you to fight more than one person" in reply to that sort of criticism, a true observation, but a system which forces all your attention on one person by defintion is at a huge disadvantage in self-defense areas, and possiblt in LEO application as well!

I know they also teach a series of techniques that are equivalent to koryu Jujutsu, more "self defense" oriented stuff, but I always wonder whetther any of that makes it's way into grappling classes.

I think that this video would be more accurately titled as 2 BJJ guys v 1 better BJJ guy. I have absolute respect for BJJ practitioners, but I do believe that this video highlights the limitations of the style.

In nearly 15 years of dealing with these situations on a daily basis, I have never seen 2 police officers attempt to restrain another individual in this manner. On top of what Iain has already stated, there are other massive omissions in the tactics deployed, which are all flaws in this drill, and some are probably intended as safety flaws.

For instance, there is no effective use of 'contact and cover' or the 'pincer movement' in order to gain an initial advantage and to stack the deck in the officers favour. This happens in real life all the time. If people do not understand this then let me put it in more simple terms, police officers 'cheat' in these situations all of the time in order to win, and they usually do. Without going in to detail, one officer will usually verbally engage the suspect and use tactical communications in order to test and seek compliance and the other officer would sneak in around the back or side (out of the field of view of the suspect), close the gap, and be ready to pounce at the trigger phrase in case everything else went wrong. The officer at the front would probably be thinking in this situation to utilise CS or taser, as the suspect's hands are concealed and he is very much an unknown threat at this stage and as such would be maintaining a bigger reactionary gap. This would be of particular importance when the suspect had his hands in his pockets and could be concealing something.

Once the situation has gone "hands on" the video also shows a complete lack of control of the suspect's arms, whilst trying desperately to apply a leg lock and a choke. Virtually all officers understand that the principal weapons of a suspect are his arms and hands. If you get stabbed, it is because he was holding a knife in his hands. The same is true if you are punched, eye gouged, shot or struck with a weapon. It is the arms that are the main delivery system of pain and chief source of serious injury and death and they must be controlled first. When there are two officers and one suspect, then both officers will invariably each control an arm and nullify most of the suspect's arsenal. By controlling the arms effectively, you massively reduce the likelihood of being hurt yourself.

Also, the grapple for control would not have lasted anywhere near as long as is shown on the video without distraction strikes being deployed in order to achieve the joint lock that is being sought to allow handcuffing. I would suspect that this is a safety flaw in the drill as otherwise large padding would need to be worn and this would reduce the effectiveness of the BJJ skills massively.

These are just a couple of issues on top of what has already been written by others on this forum and does not even touch on the dangers of positional asphyxia and subsequent death from the tactics that were used in this video, particularly under the effects of adrenaline in a real life situation.

As I said at the top, this is more 2 BJJ guys against 1 BJJ guy and is certainly not reflective of how UK police officers would arrest a suspect in my experience. I guess just putting a utility belt on someone doesn't make them a police officer! ;-)

I think that this video would be more accurately titled as 2 BJJ guys v 1 better BJJ guy. I have absolute respect for BJJ practitioners, but I do believe that this video highlights the limitations of the style.

In nearly 15 years of dealing with these situations on a daily basis, I have never seen 2 police officers attempt to restrain another individual in this manner. On top of what Iain has already stated, there are other massive omissions in the tactics deployed, which are all flaws in this drill, and some are probably intended as safety flaws.

.........

As I said at the top, this is more 2 BJJ guys against 1 BJJ guy and is certainly not reflective of how UK police officers would arrest a suspect in my experience. I guess just putting a utility belt on someone doesn't make them a police officer! ;-)

Jeff

Totally agree, I too have full respect for GJJ and BJJ as martial arts but it is a totally different ball game as Officers and in the street where there are "No Rules"

I agree with What Jeff has described and I wonder how much experience the 2 GJJ guys with the Utility Belts on have of Police Tactics and arrests of Live ARMED suspects. Krav Maga and Kippap are more relevant to this event than GJJ/BJJ.

They were too concerned with the single Suspect and not about possible surrounding "Friends" or "Family" of the suspect jumping in to assist which I've seen happen

I can't see any stabbing here. It looks like he is reaching for the knife but he don't gets it out in time. I guess it is simply falling out of his pocket while rolling around. I can't see no fumbling or that he has it actually in his hands.

Had to slow the video down, but I think your right. The hand goes into the hoodie, comes out and goes to the officer’s back. That looked like a stab, but watching it back in slow motion / freeze frame I think your right that the hand is empty. That would also explain why the knife ended up on the floor: if fell out of this pocket.

The general observation remains valid though I think as it was just luck that a firm grip on the knife was not taken. Of course luck always does play a part, but we can do things to help ourselves and in this case I feel the officer relied on luck alone.

Gavin J Poffley wrote:

What struck me as foolish was the fact that both of the police officers chose to go down with him and grapple. Surely if one had remained on his feet he could simply have drawn his gun and ordered the criminal engaged with his partner to surrender?

Agreed. There were better ways to act as a team than to engage in simultaneous groundwork.

Nezumi wrote:

First, neither officer (unless I missed it) alerted the other when the knife was first produced. As a matter of practice we always, during cell extractions or disturbances, shout "knife" when we see one.

A very good point!

Nezumi wrote:

Consequently, we employ the following use-of-force model which uses color coding as an easy reference … The two officers in the drill jump immediately to an "orange" response to what is only a "green" level of threat. In most law enforcement agencies this would be in violation of policy, not to mention unnecessary and dangerous.

Another very good observation. Officers have to take these things in to account when training and designing procedures. This drill seems to have omitted policy issues.

jeffc wrote:

In nearly 15 years of dealing with these situations on a daily basis, I have never seen 2 police officers attempt to restrain another individual in this manner.

jeffc wrote:

As I said at the top, this is more 2 BJJ guys against 1 BJJ guy and is certainly not reflective of how UK police officers would arrest a suspect in my experience.

I would suggest that is because it’s not a good way to achieve the objective. There are other ways to achieve the goal that are safer for all involved; and official officer training will rightly focus on those.

jeffc wrote:

Also, the grapple for control would not have lasted anywhere near as long as is shown on the video without distraction strikes being deployed in order to achieve the joint lock that is being sought to allow handcuffing. I would suspect that this is a safety flaw in the drill as otherwise large padding would need to be worn and this would reduce the effectiveness of the BJJ skills massively.

All drills have flaws, but light open handed strikes (or light strikes wearing MMA gloves) could have been included so the role of strikes was not totally omitted? To be fair, it’s always difficult to judge the totality of a training method from one clip so this aspect may well have been covered in other training and drills.

jeffc wrote:

These are just a couple of issues on top of what has already been written by others on this forum and does not even touch on the dangers of positional asphyxia and subsequent death from the tactics that were used in this video, particularly under the effects of adrenaline in a real life situation.

Again, that’s a great observation! To my knowledge, chokes and strangles are discouraged in current day police / prison officer training in the UK (along with certain restraint positions) because of the danger of positional asphyxia occurring with a highly agitated person. I did a quick web-search to see if there was anything on positional asphyxia (for those who may not know what is meant by that) and I found this video and webpage:

Taking the guy’s back and applying a strangle would therefore be problematic in this regard (as well as in the ways previously discussed).

Black Tiger wrote:

Totally agree, I too have full respect for GJJ and BJJ as martial arts but it is a totally different ball game as Officers are in the street where there are "No Rules"

There are rules in the forms of laws and procedures. The training for officers needs to take those into account.

Black Tiger wrote:

Krav Maga and Kippap are more relevant to this event than GJJ/BJJ.

I would not say it is an “art thing” but a context issue. BJJ would be great, but there needs to be a shift in context from BJJ for fighting to BJJ for restraint. Krav could be good too, but the common problem I see with Krav is the failure to shift to context from military conflict to civilian self-protection i.e. the amount of techniques which end in potentially fatal force as opposed escape (stab the guy with his own knife and not consider the legal dictate of reasonable force, etc). I’m sure the same problem would exist with Krav for officer training if the role of context was again not effectively considered. So for me it’s not the art, but the objective / context that is key. BJJ places a huge emphasis on controlling people on the ground – which is typically where handcuffs will be applied to a person who is resisting – so with the addition of being objective driven and context relevant I think BJJ could provide a very useful skill set for officers.

Black Tiger wrote:

They were too concerned with the single Suspect and not about possible surrounding "Friends" or "Family" of the suspect jumping in to assist which I've seen happen

Absolutely. The need to control the perimeter – or at the very least stay mindful of the need to observe it – should be factored in. Because officers tend to work in teams someone should be given this role.

To me this is a strawman video. It had elements of a real scenario, but was not played out like a real scenario. Two firearms carrying officers choosing to physically engage a potentially armed suspect by tackling him to the ground? Ignoring the firearms, engaging in physical tactics but not striking as well as grappling?

There is a time and a place for different elements for different arts. BJJ has a lot to offer in terms of the development of groundfighting skills, but this scenario should not have involved them.

Just a little something from my Facebook page. I posted the link to this thread, and the following comment was made:

Russ Frame via Facebook wrote:

As you say, context is important... these are two officers who are green in their GST (Gracie Survival Tactics) program drilling a single area. If you look at the information regarding GST, they point out:

1. The bad guy always has the ambush advantage.
2. Never grapple with the bad guy/enemy by choice.
3. In a street fight, there is no “tap-out.”

The point would therefore be that the officers broke the protocols of the system being taught. Here is my reply:

Iain Abernethy via Facebook wrote:

Hi Russ, I agree it’s important that people don’t judge a full method by one clip; and I think that’s mentioned a few times in the thread. It’s also not a critique of GST as whole, because no one (to my knowledge) commenting has sufficient training in the methodology to make such a critique. The objective was to share a video around which a conversation on the importance of context can be discussed i.e. fighting vs. civilian self-protection vs. control and restraint, etc.
In the video, both officers break the second and third rules you’ve posted (although the coach can be heard telling them to ignore the tap out). In breaking the GST rules you posted, by ignoring what would be good tactics for such a situation, ignoring the need to retain weapons (which would seem to advised in the program), etc they put themselves in a dangerous position.
It seems like all involved approached it as a two on one grapple, as opposed to a realistic drill for scenario presented (i.e. they confused contexts) which was the arrest of a suspect who was armed with a knife. In the thread we have police and prison officers from both sides of the Atlantic making the observation that what is shown in the clip is inappropriate, dangerous and procedurally problematic for the scenario presented.
We don’t see the debrief, but one would hope the officers were cautioned that what they did was in breach of the core values of the system they are being taught and could potentially have seen them stabbed, shot with their own guns, attacked by bystanders, and dismissed from the force for not following use of force procedures. It’s a good example of what not to do … and it would have been better if it was presented as that; especially when the core values of the system are being ignored i.e. weapons were made accessible to the bad guy (“Retain control of your weapons”), they both opted to grapple (“Never grapple with the bad guy/enemy by choice”), etc.

Hopefully there are some aspects in my reply that are worth adding here.

“A straw man is a common type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”

The video is presented as a legitimate scenario, so there has been no attempt to “replace it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition and refute it”. All concerns and observations are therefore legitimate because the critique is based on the actual video.

JWT wrote:

It had elements of a real scenario, but was not played out like a real scenario.

I agree. As others have said, it was largely played out like a two on one dojo grapple.

JWT wrote:

BJJ has a lot to offer in terms of the development of groundfighting skills, but this scenario should not have involved them.

Again, I agree. The scenario as presented (the context of two officers arresting a suspect) meant seeking a ground fight as the go to option was ill advised.

One other observation is that the gentlemen playing the role of the bad guy states that he expects the officers to tell him to drop the knife, at which point he intents to “bum rush” them. That would have made for a more realistic start to scenario, but as it was the officers immediately rushed him themselves and in the process ignored what is apparently one of the core tenets of the system i.e. never grapple by choice. The bad guy expected verbal commands to come into play, but that was ignored by the officers. One would hope they were cautioned for ignoring use of force protocols, falling to protect their weapons, grappling through choice, etc. The scenario could then have been rerun, and a better example of what to do (and hence a better representation of the system being presented) uploaded instead.

To my mind, this video should not have been uploaded as is, because it shows a whole host of “what not to dos”, but (unintentionally?) presents them as a success. It has value as a study of error and would have been better presented as such?

Russ Frame makes the point that there are three ground rules and two of them are broken in the video. Of these ground rules I would suggest that with regards the first one, good officers switch this around and stack the deck in their favour ( or "cheating" as I originally called it!) taking the opportunity to be effectively ambushed away from the suspect.

In relation to the second point, any system that uses restraint methods involves an element of grappling, although whether this is primary or secondary is dependent on the context and situation.

In relation to the third point, this is a dangerous comment in my opinion. If a suspect gives in (taps out) and you continue applying force as if they haven't then that is arguably unlawful force depending upon the situation. It annoys me when people say there are no rules in a real fight. Clearly there are rules if you want to stay out of prison.

Iain, you're right - I misused the term 'stawman'. What I meant is that I don't think this video accurately represents the system being taught. It shows an exercise which has some good ideas, but it also shows trainees and instructors who, like you and me, are fallible.

Iain Abernethy wrote:

One other observation is that the gentlemen playing the role of the bad guy states that he expects the officers to tell him to drop the knife, at which point he intents to “bum rush” them. That would have made for a more realistic start to scenario, but as it was the officers immediately rushed him themselves and in the process ignored what is apparently one of the core tenets of the system i.e. never grapple by choice. The bad guy expected verbal commands to come into play, but that was ignored by the officers. One would hope they were cautioned for ignoring use of force protocols, falling to protect their weapons, grappling through choice, etc. The scenario could then have been rerun, and a better example of what to do (and hence a better representation of the system being presented) uploaded instead.

To my mind, this video should not have been uploaded as is, because it shows a whole host of “what not to dos”, but (unintentionally?) presents them as a success. It has value as a study of error and would have been better presented as such?

All the best,

Iain

I'm yes/no on this. I think the video could have done with more exposition, but I don't know for sure how many of its faults the training provider recognises.

I frequently post videos on my DART fb page showing people, both my students and guests, making mistakes (I can post the link here if you think it would be helpful). I don't always point them out - in fact while there are lots of positives there are so many mistakes that it would be impractical to point them all out. I often have scenarios where 'in the end' it turns out okay, but the participants make lots of errors which we cover from multiple angles in the debriefs. I would stress that I debrief impartially, making no claims that I could do it better in their shoes.

I recently had a training day where one participant who seems to have had a fair amount of real life violence experience (that he may not have come to terms with) had such an adrenaline dump that he took every situation physical, including the ones that could have been talked down, including the ones where the verbal or violence wasn't orientated towards him, hitting anyone moving that he could see. He even experienced a loss of colour vision. It's entirely possible that (one or both of) these two chaps were so hyped by what they are doing that they went straight to the physical engagement without any conscious tactical decision making (greater verbal interaction, positioning, weapon use etc).

I don't mind the video as it is. By that I mean I can watch it and make a long list of 'what not to do' both in scenario creation and in practical application. Others can watch it and learn less but still stay happy with what they are doing (which for most of them is simply a form of physical exercise). I've seen worse!

What I meant is that I don't think this video accurately represents the system being taught. It shows an exercise which has some good ideas, but it also shows trainees and instructors who, like you and me, are fallible.

I think that’s a sound observation and I appreciate the clarification.

JWT wrote:

I'm yes/no on this. I think the video could have done with more exposition, but I don't know for sure how many of its faults the training provider recognises.

I frequently post videos on my DART fb page showing people, both my students and guests, making mistakes (I can post the link here if you think it would be helpful). I don't always point them out - in fact while there are lots of positives there are so many mistakes that it would be impractical to point them all out. I often have scenarios where 'in the end' it turns out okay, but the participants make lots of errors which we cover from multiple angles in the debriefs. I would stress that I debrief impartially, making no claims that I could do it better in their shoes …

… I don't mind the video as it is. By that I mean I can watch it and make a long list of 'what not to do' both in scenario creation and in practical application. Others can watch it and learn less but still stay happy with what they are doing (which for most of them is simply a form of physical exercise). I've seen worse!

Very useful observation that John. I’ve came across very few who do scenario training as thoroughly and as effectively as yourself and hence your observations around that make an invaluable addition to the thread.

Thanks for the vid. I'm new to posting on your forum but am a regular reader and enjoy your podcasts.

I've been a Police Officer for 10 years serving in operational roles in urban and suburban areas, so this thread caught my eye. Like most coppers in the UK I don't carry a firearm on uniform patrol but am currently equipped with CS incapacitant spray, ASP and Arnold batons, quickuffs, leg restraints and our vehicles usually have short shields on board.

I have a keen interest in martial arts and RBSD, and have a fair idea as to what works and what doesn't, from an officer safety perspective, having had some experience in dealing with non-compliance/violence brought about through booze, drugs, mental illness, stupidity, plain bad attitude or all of/combinations of the above.

Having viewed the video I'm left with the impression that it is nothing more than an advert for Gracie Jiu Jitsu, and not a very effective advert from a policing point of view! Neither I, nor any of my team mates, would approach and deal with the situation depicted as was shown on the video. Equally AFOs, would adopt an entirely different approach. Distance and a reactionary gap are paramount as are tac-comms and a game plan if it all goes south in an instant. The video shows officers electing to go hands on when it might be more prudent to maintain/get some distance and draw a baton, spray, taser or a firearm. If you're fighting with someone putting up aggressive resistance then shock, awe and overwhelming force can come into play. It's not simply about trying to out muscle, or out-grapple, the suspect.

I don't train BJJ and don't really have much interest in pure grappling, favouring as I do striking arts that cover a bit of groundwork, but appreciate BJJ's value vis a vis control and restraint. What is missing from the video, in my view, are good old distractionary strikes. Striking to distract or even to gain compliance can be highly effective during an arrest where a suspect is fighting/resisting and accordingly knee strikes, hammer fists and pretty much everything else is in play, where justified. Whilst this doesn't look pretty on the street from Joe Public's perspective (hence why your actions must always be reasonable and justified) provided you can justify it, you can use whatever you deem appropriate. I would have no issue putting some ferocious strikes into the fella on the video, particularly in light of the fact he was armed with a knife (and the possibility he may be armed with other weapons) or had the potential to grab a firearm. At that point I can assume he intends to cause me, or another, serious harm and my response is raised appropriately. It is now my duty to ensure this guy does not get up with a weapon. I could elect to withdraw, but again, are other persons in immediate danger? Not always black and white for the officer on the scene but you can be assured your actions will be mulled over at length by the Monday morning jury! If you take a look at this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z319aVJqybE of a hard-stop conducted by CO19 you'll see officers (at the rear of the suspect vehicle) giving the passenger a few digs from 1:20 onwards. No doubt this will make some people uncomfortable, but when you factor in the officers have been told the subjects are carrying firearms for criminal purposes, the cops are justified in suppressing any resistance/non-compliance from the vehicle occupants. Coincidentally I didn't see officers here trying to get suspects into arm-bars or doing the fandango trying to get a superior position!

I can only conclude, as has already been alluded to by other contributors here, that this video is more of an advert than a how-to for tackling a resisting suspect with a high skill level. Based on this video, I wouldn't be adopting GST as my officer safety handbook but I've only seen this vid, and no disrespect intended to any Gracie afficiando. I'm a firm believer in all styles having something to offer.

I haven't read all the posts here, as there are rather a lot! I agree with Iain (as always). My only observation in respect of Iains original post and the others I've read is that whilst the drill could have been better, and more realistic in terms of context, I don't think that was the point, which is a pity.

The only point of the film was to pit a reasonably skilled mma fighter physically against two cops in a controlled environment and see whether he could stop them taking him down or cuffing him and thats it. Context wasn't really here because it was never intended to be......

It would be interesting to know what the rules were in this scenario. Was striking allowed for example??.

Very useful observation that John. I’ve came across very few who do scenario training as thoroughly and as effectively as yourself and hence your observations around that make an invaluable addition to the thread.

Thanks Iain.

I do post links to youtube clips of some of our scenario work with my own students (but mainly guests) here, but those videos are often dubbed over with music so you can't get the full sense of what the participants are going through.

I post a number of the short acclimatisation and unedited scenario videos (usually 40 seconds to 1.5 minutes long) on the DART facebook page as examples where people can study and make judgements about actions taken. I would stress that in all the videos the majority of the scenario lies in the posturing and the interpretation of intent and adoption of positioning and body language. Dissecting the physical fighting element is much simpler. The videos do contain a fair amount of swearing.

I would point out that a lot of our videos aren't physically intense. I get participants from a wide range of backgrounds of a wide range of ability. We make continuous judgements and adjust the intensity for them. The verbal is almost always intense, but we do adapt the physical intensity to stretch the comfort zone of participants rather than traumatise them. Many are so 'stunned' by the aggression of the verbal that they go from being capable hitters to non hitters, and for those that struggled to hit to begin with, the effect can be equally severe. By contrast some people lose all judgement and awareness (and skill) to a flood of adrenaline and go a little mental. Balancing the different needs of the unique small groups that come together so everyone has learned something and progressed is quite challenging. As you can probably imagine, a lot of the benefit of the training comes from the participant and group analysis and introspection of the footage on the day.

A number of the less 'flashy' but interesting videos can be seen on the page here: